Difference between theory in science vs. common usage?

What are some major differences between the word theory in science and as it is commonly used on the streets?

Follow

2 answers 2

Report Abuse

Are you sure you want to delete this answer?

Sorry, something has gone wrong.

Answers

Best Answer: I'll just give you one, and it is highly relevant. You hear creationists say "Evolution is only a theory". That is the street usage of "theory", used as a synonym for "opinion" or "guess"; one can almost hear the implied sneer "merely" in their barely concealed hisses. A theory in science is a coherent body of knowledge sustained by constant testing in and outside of laboratories, the purpose of which is to reject hypotheses shown to be wrong by such tests. These results are then used to modify the theory so as to accord better with observations. Karl Popper proposed his eponymous Popper criterion for a theory to be scientific -- it must be falsifiable, i.e., there must be tests that can expose wrong predictions of the theory. See the link below. In this strict sense, no scientific theory is ever absolutely correct, not even quantum physics, for who knows what future experiments may wrought? However, something like Newtonian mechanics (a classical approximation) is the basis of bridge and skyscraper designs because it is a good enough theory for ordinary sized objects. Scientific theories are marked by their inherent modesty -- scientists will be the first to admit that their theories cannot explain everything. Indeed, a "theory" that explains everything explains nothing.

In technology a concept is a form explaining an suggested phenomena that has been verified by different observations, experiments and different empirical data to a level the place the hypotheses that stand as commencing place of the form are seen commonly used. the common use of concept is extra consistent with the medical use of the be conscious hypothesis. Evolution qualified as a concept till 1953 whilst the invention of DNA invalided countless hypotheses that stood as commencing place of Darwin's form. those hypotheses that have been provided to change the have yet to be shown so if we use precise medical terminology Evolution fails to fulfill the minimum standards of a medical concept yet might rightfully be referred to as a hypothetical form, or in case you desire the common utilization of the be conscious concept may well be a correct utility whilst conversing of evolution. Neither the super Bang nor Abiogenesis even come close to to assembly the minimum standards to be seen a medical concept. on a similar time the extra we hit upon out approximately DNA and the genome the extra distant the opportunity of descent with substitute will become. in actuality lots of the Genetic data for evolution seems to be assumptions in keeping with lack of wisdom that have later been invalidated by empirical information. you say of the be conscious concept the medical utilization and straightforward utilization represents an extraordinarily particular and significant distinction that a super many creationists do no longer look to comprehend. whilst one speaks of anecdotal, and purpose interpretations of data a similar might nicely be reported of those helping evolution. many of the data referred to in desire of evolution is anecdotal, might nicely be defined in words that don't require the belief of evolution and many times isn't even independently probative for evolution.